Widescreen Gaming Forum

The thing is Sweetz as I pointed out, While I agree that Wheelman was probably developed for 16:9, they did NOT select the FOV. It runs on the UE3 engine, which is vert- by default, they probably did not think about the field of view what so ever.

No, I'd imagine they did choose the FOV. I think you mean to imply that they didn't think think about FOV implementation for different aspects, which I'd agree with, however they most likely did specifically choose the default value for the FOV.

There are many UE3 games that are vert-/+, but they don't all have the same default FOV. This means developers are specificaly picking an FOV that they feel is suited to whatever target aspect they're developing the game for; they're just not worrying about how that FOV behaves when the aspect changes.

The Wheelman is a beast of its own - it may be Vert- from 16:9 on only, and a Vert+ 16:10 might not hurt the gameplay experience, it still needs a hack for TripleHead. What can we do, simply bend the rules for this one ?

Mass Effect is like this, as is Gears of War and probably a few other vert-/+ console ports I'm forgetting. One can say with a reasonably high degree of confidence that these games were designed to be played at 16:9 (especially Mass Effect which is anamorphic on console).

I appreciate the need to grade the technical implementation of these games objectively. However, I still say there's need to be some sort of obvious disclaimer, independent of the technical grading, for these games indicating that while the FOV change behavior is wrong, that doesn't mean the FOV or gameplay itself is "wrong" at 16:9 or 16:10.

Again, my only worry is that people will see the grade for these games and think playing them in 16:9 or 16:10 is "bad", when ostensibly that's how they were meant to played.

There needs to be something that says while it's a C or a D, it's still a widescreen game. How best to communicate this - unfortunately I don't have many good ideas at the moment - but it's something you should be able to tell at a glance.

The thing is Sweetz as I pointed out, While I agree that Wheelman was probably developed for 16:9, they did NOT select the FOV. It runs on the UE3 engine, which is vert- by default, they probably did not think about the field of view what so ever.

I disagree. I find it hard to believe that they would develop an entire game, and leave out something like that. I'm almost certain they went through and tweaked the camera for 16:9. The game will not use the same FOV for every thing in the game. If there's any weapons that zoom, or any cutscenes that zoom around, you know for certain they went in and set the FOV.

I can't say what files were or were not opened by the devs for Blacksite (UE3), but after posting my Hor+ fix for that game I can say with reasonable certainty that a single dev/programmer could have implemented perfect WS Hor+ support for all ARs in 2 hours or less.

For whatever reason, it was either ignored or deemed unimportant.

It was something they don't bother to think about when porting it back to the PC. PC is not the main market. They develop the game for 16:9 for the consoles. They don't have to worry about any other aspect-ratio. If the user sets the game to be in 480p, they often just downscale the 720p frame and add black bars, so it's still 16:9.

Independent of all that, the grade Wheelman (and a few other vert -/+ games) games being lowered because of the presence of a hack to make them hor+ seems wrong. For one, if we do assume the game's FOV was chosen for 16:9 and not 4:3, then we're actually messing up the experience by telling people to use the hack.

This is why I have been trying to get them to mention a default aspect-ratio for so long. The games get a low rating, they never mention what the default aspect-ratio is, and the terminology of Vert- always makes it sound like something is lost. So when they say the game is Vert-, without specifying a default aspect-ratio, that makes it sound like anything above 4:3 is being cropped off, when in reality, its 4:3 that's Vert+.





Perhaps a more detailed rating system is in order.

Rather than just give the game an overall rating, on top of that break it down by aspect-ratio.

Example:
5:4 - D
4:3 - D
16:10 - B
16:9 - A
3x16:10 - F

etc.

This way if someone comes to the site and wonders if the game will be good on their 16:9 display or not will know right off the bat that it's good. And if someone else comes to the site and wonders if it will work on their TH setup, then it will be obvious that it's not going to work right.

If a default aspect-ratio is mentioned, then games like Fallout 3, Wheelman, and many other 360/PC games will have the correct rating for the default aspect-ratio, which is 16:9. If there is some adjustment option, or a fix or sorts in the future, then they know which aspect-ratio they need to target to have the game look correct and scale horizontally.

_________________
Widescreen Fixer - https://www.widescreenfixer.org/

Widescreen Fixer Twitter - https://twitter.com/widescreenfixer
Personal Twitter - https://twitter.com/davidrudie

I agree with Dopefish. A per-AR rating of some sort would be ideal, if that's feasible. Right now games may miss certification because of stretched FMVs in one single aspect ratio (Lego Batman), or because of any blemish in TH (the Aquaria issue), which feels a bit odd.
Besides, the current system looks for "bad things". There should be a way to count the "good things".

Problem is, would we give a unified Gold Medal to games with A grades in all ARs only ?

Perhaps another medal. A gold medal if it supports single-screen aspect-ratios fine, and a platinum (or gold with TH or some other difference) if it supports single-screen and multi-screen aspect-ratios.

The amount of people that use more than one screen for gaming is extremely minimal. Not taking this forum into account, and basing off the users I deal with on two other separate forums (over 100 people), the amount of people that use more than one screen for gaming is 0. I think if you go on a large scale, less than 1% of users online use more than one screen. Therefore, marking a game down because it doesn't support TH is a bad idea. There are games that support 4:3, 16:10, and 16:9 just fine, but do not support TH (see CoD4/5, Frontlines, others). The name of the forum is Widescreen Gaming Forum, not Widescreens (plural) or Triplehead Gaming Forum. This implies the site is targeting single widescreens.

So perhaps you can have an overall rating, a breakdown with per-aspect-ratio grading, and a bonus section or extra points if it supports TH. Ratings could be similar to F, D, C, B, A, S, where A would be main rating that a game will get if it is certified with proper horizontal scaling, and an S if it supports TH with HUD alignments and other specific things taken into account.

I'm just throwing ideas out here, so feel free to throw in your own ideas or take them further or something.

In my opinion, we should be focusing on the users that come to this site looking for guidance. "This game just came out and I want to know if it plays fine with my 16:9 display. Oh? It got a D? I'll pass." Ratings like this will not only turn people away because they think it has poor support, but it can hurt game sales and relations with publishers/developers for an improper reason. Wheelman should be certified for 16:9, and have lower markings for other aspect-ratios, and be able to be seen right away. So a user comes to this site wondering if Wheelman will work fine on his 16:9 display, he fines the game in the list, and there is a column with various aspect-ratios. He finds the 16:9 column and sees it gets an A and buys the game.

Change is necessary.

_________________
Widescreen Fixer - https://www.widescreenfixer.org/

Widescreen Fixer Twitter - https://twitter.com/widescreenfixer
Personal Twitter - https://twitter.com/davidrudie

Sure, 'surround gaming' is a niche. But the WSGF is simply the #1 stop for all things TripleHead. I'm sure a lot of owners of widescreen displays don't know what Hor+ and anamorphism are; I'm also sure most owners of a TripleHead setup do, because they know the WSGF. That's why it only makes sense that the grades finally mean something for TripleHeaders.

As for certifying The Wheelman for 16:9... I like the idea, but how do you add 3 or 4 potential medals for each game (16:10, 15:9, 16:9, TH) to all the info already present on the MGL ?

How do you go through a list of more than 400 games, and determine the baseline AR for each and every one of them?

The amount of people that use more than one screen for gaming is extremely minimal. Not taking this forum into account, and basing off the users I deal with on two other separate forums (over 100 people), the amount of people that use more than one screen for gaming is 0. I think if you go on a large scale, less than 1% of users online use more than one screen. Therefore, marking a game down because it doesn't support TH is a bad idea. There are games that support 4:3, 16:10, and 16:9 just fine, but do not support TH (see CoD4/5, Frontlines, others). The name of the forum is Widescreen Gaming Forum, not Widescreens (plural) or Triplehead Gaming Forum. This implies the site is targeting single widescreens.

I had these thoughts myself, but the arguement I came around to accepting is that this site can promote triplehead and make sure it is more widely supported, which will lead to more people buying-in to the technology.

How do you go through a list of more than 400 games, and determine the baseline AR for each and every one of them?

I'm not saying we need to go back and do that to all of the existing reports. I think when a new grading system is introduced, you start using that with all of the new reports. If someone feels like they want to go back and re-do some of the games, then they can. You don't see sites that review games go back and re-review all the games when a new grading system is released. They just leave the old ones as they are and any new ones use the new system.

So once a new system is finalized upon, make it the standard that every new game must use, and let it be known.

I had these thoughts myself, but the arguement I came around to accepting is that this site can promote triplehead and make sure it is more widely supported, which will lead to more people buying-in to the technology.

My statement wasn't meant to discourage TH at all. It was that TH has a relatively small userbase, and marking a game down because 50 people out of hundreds of thousands don't have support for their 3 monitors would be wrong. In a case like this, 99% of the people would have an enjoyable experience with the game. If they nail the single-screen aspect-ratios, but don't have support for TH, I don't think it should lower the rating. If the game has good support for TH, then give it an extra rating or something to make it say “Hey, this dev-team went above and beyond.â€

_________________
Widescreen Fixer - https://www.widescreenfixer.org/

Widescreen Fixer Twitter - https://twitter.com/widescreenfixer
Personal Twitter - https://twitter.com/davidrudie

I'm not saying we need to go back and do that to all of the existing reports.

Unless you're suggesting that we tear down the MGL and start from scratch, then we pretty much have to apply these changes retroactively. If we have a bunch of gold-medal games on the same list, but a gold medal means something different depending on when the game's DR was written, then the list is pretty useless.

Review sites never go back and alter ratings or change it when a new system is in place. Just make sure to note that there is a different grading system in place between then and now. Split them into two different categories based on the systems. Do something.

_________________
Widescreen Fixer - https://www.widescreenfixer.org/

Widescreen Fixer Twitter - https://twitter.com/widescreenfixer
Personal Twitter - https://twitter.com/davidrudie